Category talk:Supreme Military Commanders
I always get such a feeling of satisfaction after I fill up a fairly large category ex nihilo. As a member of the ruling class I hereby nominate myself for the Baiter Award for Outstanding Making of Minor Edits, with oak clusters. Turtle Fan 22:57, January 29, 2010 (UTC) The rest of the ruling class will take it under advisement (psst, you'll win). TR 22:59, January 29, 2010 (UTC) We really should make up a bunch of rewards to give ourselves. We could design uniforms as high-falutin' as Rydz-Smigly's for some formal in-the-flesh conference that will never happen. We just need to find better names for them. I'm able to contain my delirious excitement at winning anything called the Baiter Award. But we can't go naming these things after active members, and none of the defunct members were worth shit, except Silver himself, and we hate him. I guess we could name shit after HT characters. Ooh, wait. Wasn't there some dude from the German army who made himself useful for a little while? Turtle Fan 23:45, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Confederates: We have five, one OTL and four TL-191. Lee is the OTL one (the one and only, as with many CS OTL offices, and even then he only had the job for three months thanks to Davis's jealous guardianship of his right to micromanage the army) and his title was General-in-Chief. The four from TL-191 are Jackson, NBF III, Willard and Cyril Northcote. The latter three were titled Chief of Staff. I'm almost certain Jackson was General-in-Chief and that the CS changed over to a General Staff model after MWII because they realized that the US was starting to get serious about Remembrance and they'd better make sure they kept up. However, I also remember Schleiffen telling Rosecrans that the US Army's command structure had put it at a disadvantage, and generally a disadvantage is only a disadvantage when the other side is not saddled with it. . . . I suppose I could check easily enough if we do anything about it, but we couldn't subdivide the hypothetical category into GiC/CoS anyway due to its size. At some point early on in our taking this place over from the above-named Baiter and his fellow half-assers, I became very annoyed that HT had never named the CS Chief of Staff during GWI nor the US Chief of Staff in GWII. We were able to identify the US Chief of Staff in GWI and the CS Chief of Staff in GWII, and what kind of encyclopedia would be so inconsistent in identifying the holders of such important offices? So I was getting ready to say "Screw it" and fill those slots with Jeb Stuart Jr and John Abell, respectively, but that was right around the time we got serious about enforcing the speculation policy. Turtle Fan 05:50, September 15, 2011 (UTC) Removal of Generals/Admirals Cat Jonathan has just removed a couple of dozen of those cats from character articles, presumably due to double cating since SMC is cated under both. That seems excessive and suggests we kept the double cating for a reason. I don't recall any and so am raising it to verify that what was done was agreeable. One reason I can think of keeping the double cating is to indicate whether the individual came from the Army or Navy. Comments? ML4E (talk) 16:24, March 13, 2018 (UTC) :I don't remember if we said this out loud or not, but I'm pretty sure we did keep the admirals and generals double cat precisely so as to indicate Army vs. Navy. In any event, I agree, we need to keep the double cat where appropriate. :We might consider a review of specific branches and countries. I know we have Supreme Commander/Joint Chiefs type category for the US Army. TR (talk) 17:09, March 13, 2018 (UTC) ::I'd keep the double catting. It's useful for knowing where a character came from, and also because these guys don't just slip into the supreme commander role; they had full military careers before that, including (in most cases) field commands during specific campaigns. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:09, March 14, 2018 (UTC)